| Revision as of 10:06, 22 January 2014 editBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,452 edits →Melodrama note← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:21, 22 January 2014 edit undoSock (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,961 edits Undid revision 591849459 by Beyond My Ken (talk) This is a direct attack on LugnutsNext edit → |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
|
{{out}}On a general note, why would you think that an observation such as the one about Dunne and melodrama, or the one you mentioned, about Bogart and gangsters, wouldn't be pertinent to appear in a number of film articles? We are an '''''encyclopedia''''', each article must, to a certain extent, stand on its own. We cannot be continuously telling the reader to go to another article, we should present them with important and pertinent facts in each article. If that means that a half-dozen articles says that Bogie played gangsters before he became a matinee idol, or that Dunne was placed in melodramas before she made her mark in screwball comedies, so be it. We're not here to be '''''efficient''''', we're here to be '''''informative''''', and if that means repeating the same information across a number of articles, that's what we do. We don't '''''assume''''' that the reader knows about Bogart's or Dunne's career arc, we '''''tell''''' them that, and not just in their bios. We give the pertinent and important facts '''''wherever''''' and '''''whenever''''' they're needed. ] (]) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
{{out}}On a general note, why would you think that an observation such as the one about Dunne and melodrama, or the one you mentioned, about Bogart and gangsters, wouldn't be pertinent to appear in a number of film articles? We are an '''''encyclopedia''''', each article must, to a certain extent, stand on its own. We cannot be continuously telling the reader to go to another article, we should present them with important and pertinent facts in each article. If that means that a half-dozen articles says that Bogie played gangsters before he became a matinee idol, or that Dunne was placed in melodramas before she made her mark in screwball comedies, so be it. We're not here to be '''''efficient''''', we're here to be '''''informative''''', and if that means repeating the same information across a number of articles, that's what we do. We don't '''''assume''''' that the reader knows about Bogart's or Dunne's career arc, we '''''tell''''' them that, and not just in their bios. We give the pertinent and important facts '''''wherever''''' and '''''whenever''''' they're needed. ] (]) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
:Hey, Grouchy Realist. Please fix your signature per ]. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
===Another cuntry heard from=== |
|
|
Hey, Grouchy Realist. Please fix your signature per ]. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
::Hey, Lugnuts, take a hike. ] (]) 09:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
:Hey, Lugnuts, take a hike. ] (]) 09:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
:::Please be ]. Your signature does need changing. Please fix this. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
::::Actually, it doesn't need changing, it's just peachy as it is, for the time being, since that's the way I feel. It links to my user page, and talk page, as required, so I think you should go ... well, let's see, how do I put this in a way that's socially acceptable, yet won't be be misunderstood by folks, who are, you know, like yourself? ... Yes, I have it -- Go peel a banana!! ] (]) 10:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
::Please be ]. Your signature does need changing. Please fix this. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
:::Actually, it doesn't need changing, it's just peachy as it is, for the time being, since that's the way I feel. It links to my user page, and talk page, as required, so I think you should go ... well, let's see, how do I put this in a way that's socially acceptable, yet won't be be misunderstood by folks, who are, you know, like yourself? ... Yes, I have it -- GO PEEL A BANANA!! ] (]) 10:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
On a general note, why would you think that an observation such as the one about Dunne and melodrama, or the one you mentioned, about Bogart and gangsters, wouldn't be pertinent to appear in a number of film articles? We are an encyclopedia, each article must, to a certain extent, stand on its own. We cannot be continuously telling the reader to go to another article, we should present them with important and pertinent facts in each article. If that means that a half-dozen articles says that Bogie played gangsters before he became a matinee idol, or that Dunne was placed in melodramas before she made her mark in screwball comedies, so be it. We're not here to be efficient, we're here to be informative, and if that means repeating the same information across a number of articles, that's what we do. We don't assume that the reader knows about Bogart's or Dunne's career arc, we tell them that, and not just in their bios. We give the pertinent and important facts wherever and whenever they're needed. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
